{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

IBL Lecture 8 - Autumn 2009


Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: NSW, to Blomley. At the time of making the agreement, Ryan was 78 years of age, had failing health, was an alcoholic that impaired his thinking and had no education to speak of. Evidence in the court of original jurisdiction showed that Blomley supplied alcohol to Ryan on the day the agreement was reached. The following day the agreement was signed in the office a solicitor who read the document to the parties.. Held: The court finds in favour of Ryan on the basis of the bargain being unfair. The court is most influenced by the unequal position of the parties to the contract and the fact that Blomley had an accomplice (Stemm) who together with Blomley took unfair advantage of Ryan’s condition and circumstances. The court described Blomley (and Stemm) as persons who relative to Ryan, had great bargaining strength and could dominate Ryan’s will. As well as the relative position of the parties in relation to the negotiation and the contract, the court was influenced in its findings by the haste to sign the contract and the price discrepancy (purchase price v market price). Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447 151 Facts: Facts: Vincenzo Amadio owned a building company that had once been very profitable but had slid into financial trouble. His parents still believed his company was doing very well. Vincenzo’s Bank knew otherwise. In order to keep trading (requiring close to $300,000 in an overdraft), Vincenzo offered the Bank the security of an office building his parents owned. Vincenzo finally asks his parents to be guarantors of the account and provide the security. In evidence it was disclosed that Mr &...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online